Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond that: a dashboard modified since the supplied timestamp 'refuses as stale', which tells the agent edits can be rejected for concurrency reasons. It does not say whether omitted fields are left unchanged or what the error payload looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, and the field enumeration is front-loaded ahead of the precondition. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, editable fields, and the staleness precondition. The remaining gap is patch-vs-replace semantics for omitted fields, which an agent must infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps four of the six parameters to their meaning and clarifies that baseUpdatedAt is the updatedAt previously read. Only 'id' and the tiles item shape are left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb (change) plus the resource (a dashboard) and enumerates the mutable fields: name, description, position, tiles. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling update_dashboard_tile, though 'whole set of tiles' gestures at it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete operational instruction ('Send the updatedAt you read as baseUpdatedAt') but never states when to choose this over update_dashboard_tile for a single tile or delete_dashboard/create_dashboard. Usage is implied rather than comparative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.